Saturday, September 21, 2019

Helen Fisher UBC Talk on The Future of Romantic Relationships in the Digital Age


Last week I had the pleasure of not only attending Helen Fisher’s talk entitled “Swipe, Right?: The Future of Romantic Relationships in the Digital Age,” but I also had the wondrous opportunity to personally meet this celebrated and renowned speaker, researcher, and scientist. Helen Fisher’s work first came to my attention during my undergrad years while studying psychology. Her bestselling book Anatomy of Love sounded most appealing and interesting, so I picked up a copy at a second-hand bookstore (the heavily indebted student could not afford new books for the longest time).

At the time, I was trying to not only understand the female heart and psyche but also wished to learn more about romantic courtship. I wished to gain some upper hand in those endeavors since romance was consistently on my mind back then. As a hopeless romantic, I saw everything through poetic rose-tinted glasses; although I did not necessarily heed her advice, I very much appreciated Helen Fisher’s insights and ideas.

Flash forward to my teaching years. As an English instructor, I was casually looking for something to use for an upcoming Valentine’s Day, material that would be both informative as well as practical for my group of young adults, and I stumbled upon Helen Fisher’s TED talk entitled “The Brain in Love.” Listening to her then, myself being happily married and in a much calmer state of mind compared to my university years, I was even more impressed with what she had to say about love, attraction, and the brain. Essentially, she considered romantic love to be a drug, and I for one was immediately hooked!

Even so much so that I considered her my academic soulmate. In fact, we have four simultaneous interests in common: Evolution, the brain, psychology, and romantic love. Her views are almost completely shared and mirrored by my humble self, and that is a very rare phenomenon. As I told her last week, there are very few people I agree with in this world, and she is one of the few.

It was about five months ago when I saw a billboard announcing her upcoming talk in September, and I had to move closer to the poster to ensure that my eyes were seeing right and that my prescription glasses were still valid. Tickets cost only twenty dollars, which for me considering the wealth of information I would receive was a complete bargain (I found out at the event that it also came with a drink voucher worth ten dollars, so things got even better than presumed)! 

Since the seats were first come, first serve, or as the usher would tell me, it was essentially festival seating, it would not have really mattered when I purchased the ticket. Nonetheless, the moment they went on sale, I was already online buying and securing my own entry to the talk.

On the day of the event, I arrived early of course; in fact, I showed up just barely after the doors had opened and before the bar would serve its drinks. When the bar openly welcomed the attendees, which occurred about an hour before the talk, I decided to use my surprise voucher for a drink of red wine to celebrate the incredible occasion of soon seeing Helen Fisher on stage. I ended up talking to a UBC student who shared some of my enthusiasm as well as incredulity (she asked me if it was really Helen Fisher who was going to speak at the event, and I assured her that this was indeed the case)!

Then I found a close enough seat to the stage. I also happened to run into one of my colleagues who had accidentally chosen to attend the talk, and I tried my best to convince her that it was indeed one of the best decisions she had made. Her husband and I referred to me as the Helen Fisher fan boy, and of course I did not mind because I was.

I proudly showed them the first edition of her book that I had acquired in the good old college days and told them that I was hoping to perhaps get it signed later on. The organizers of the event had previously communicated to us that Helen Fisher would sign books after the talk, but that there would be neither dedications nor selfies allowed due to time constraints. I thought to myself that a simple book signing would simply make my day anyhow.

Just as I was engaged in pre-talk conversation, an elderly man suddenly stopped in the main aisle next to me. I thought he either knew me or he wanted to sit in the same row as me. It was neither. Instead, he produced his drink voucher and asked me if I wanted it. 

I did not hesitate to accept, but I double checked with him to see if he really wanted to give his voucher away. He said yes, and there I was with another potential drink to be partaken after the talk. I was ecstatic and Cat Steven’s catchy line of “everything is going my way” was buzzing in the nether regions of my brain.



And then she took on the stage (right after some preliminary but thank goodness rather brief introductions). In fact, Helen Fisher started off full of vigor and energy, and she began with the end and the final take-away message of her talk: She gave a big thank you to the millennials who have actively brought about a revolution, not only in technology but also in mindset. 

She added that it is wrong to assume that technology is killing love. Love is something you cannot and will not ever kill! It is ingrained in us since the beginning of time and shall stay with us for time immemorial: Love is primordial, adaptable, and eternal! Now if that’s not an amazing entry, I do not know what is!

Her hopeful and optimistic outlook was in direct contrast with another talk I had attended months ago on how technology brainwashes and manipulates us with fake news influencing our voting choices and patterns. In fact, we ought to delete our social media apps from our phones. Although some of their observations were certainly true and valid, I did not subscribe to the bleak picture they painted about humanity and technology at that session. 

And no, twitterverse rest assured, I did not succumb and delete my twitter app but rather used my phone to let that person in question know that I would not do so. The irony was, of course, that the speaker herself had a Twitter account but did not allow herself to have it handy and ready on her smartphone; she was most likely not trusting herself to use and handle it wisely.

While that speaker was projecting her own fears and insecurity about the future of technology, Helen Fisher, much more poised and scientific in her outlook and demeanor, instead looked back and used the example of evolution to ground her claims and optimism. We are, whether we acknowledge it or not part and parcel of evolutionary processes and development and of a brain system that has been evolving from over 4 million years ago.

This powerful brain system connects us across history and the globe, and it underlines and ensures that romantic love is universal. In fact, this overlap exists also across sexual orientation and identification as gays and straights love the same way. 

In either case, when we fall in love, the loved one attains special meaning in our heart, and we constantly think about them; it’s as if someone was, in Fisher’s words, “constantly camping” in our head. Everything they say, they do or everything they possess gains a special quasi magical and mystical meaning.

In fact, love and attraction can be divided into three stages: The first one is the sex drive driven by increased levels of testosterone, the second one is romantic attraction, evidenced by surges of dopamine and norepinephrine, and finally, we have attachment kicking in in with the release of oxytocin and vasopressin.

Contrary to popular opinion, Helen Fisher insisted that there was no such thing as casual sex. This phenomenon could exist and be true only if the person in question was completely drunk or spaced out; otherwise, sexual intercourse would create important chemical bonds and connections between people. 

It is the neurotransmitter dopamine that fuels and is responsible for our craving, for the feeling of elation and motivation, and it also helps and makes us focus on what and who we want. It is the driving force behind our lingering obsession since romantic love in its essence is an obsession or a drug after all.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the regions of the brain responsible for dopamine are next to the part of the brain that controls and regulates thirst and hunger. This ancient survival mechanism is also symbolized and reflected in our speech as we “thirst” for someone, we “crave” a specific person and “hunger” for their physical presence. Sex not unlike hunger and thirst is a basic physical as well as emotional need we all share and have in common.

Parts of the middle brain are responsible for attachment. Attachment takes time to grow and develop. It is another human drive that tries to ensure that the person stays and sticks with us. From an evolutionary point of view, we want to pair up with the other person, and in many instances, we want to ensure that our offspring has everything they need.

Is monogamy a natural state for humans? Helen Fisher gave us some statistics that support the view that humans tend to prefer monogamy. She preferred to use the term pair bonding, which means that we would like to be with one person at a given moment or over a certain time period because as humans, we are, generally speaking, jealous animals. 

Moreover, in societies that allow and accept polygamy, only 5 to 10 % of men end up taking more than one wife, most likely because they cannot afford more wives. It takes a lot of goats, sheep, and cows to be able to afford more than one woman, Helen Fisher quipped.

She then gave an example of a man who had three wives. As she was driving in his jeep, she asked him ideally how many wives he would have liked to have. The man paused for a while, and Helen was thinking that he was going to give her an astronomical number, such as five, ten or even twenty wives. But to her surprise, the man retorted, ideally, he would have none.

But the states and stages of courtship and marriage have changed, and those changes are mainly due to and driven by technological advances. Today we use anything from emojis, emails to texting, while some even engage in sexting despite the fear of its potential fallout and consequences. 

These technological means of and opportunities for communication have significantly influenced and changed the face of courtship, and oddly enough, some of its most ardent users are older people; in fact, technology has facilitated communication and the expression of romantic interest especially for that age bracket.

But dating sites can only do so much and can only go so far. In fact, they should be perceived as introduction services because, as Helen Fisher put it, the only true algorithm is your brain. However, with this new technology, there are also rules, tips, and taboos. 

One of the tech dating tips from Helen Fisher was to limit your choices from five to a maximum of nine persons. Since having more than nine options will create cognitive overload in your brain, it is best to stop after meeting nine potential romantic interests.

One should also overcome what is known as the negativity bias. We would need to focus on the more positive aspects of the person that could help us override the perceived negative ones. The problem with negative aspects is that they are more salient than the good characteristics. This is a by-product from evolution where our focus on the negative may have helped to increase our chances for survival.

If you are among the many who have met over the Internet, take heart, as you are certainly not the only one. In fact, most people nowadays meet or have met on the Internet. They are also less likely to divorce, they tend to be better educated and with permanent jobs, but, moreover, they are truly looking for a companion. All of this adds to a recipe of success when it comes to long-term commitment and relationships, and the online tools can help us reach them.

In fact, what many perceive as reckless behavior among younger adults of this modern age is not really so. What happens is that we have moved away from Agrarian belief systems, a farming life that tended to promote and accentuate virginity, arranged marriages as well as marriages in which the female spouses were serving and dominated by their husbands. In fact, this relationship would only end when death do them part.

All of this has been and is continuously changing. Marriages, as a result, are becoming happier and more egalitarian. Where marriage used to be seen as the starting point of a partnership, now it has become the final outcome of a relationship. What that means is that the pre-commitment stage has been expanded.

Before jumping into relationships, many start out as friends. Then they may become friends with benefits, which is basically a way of gauging sexual compatibility. After this, there will be the official date. 

As Helen Fisher pointed out, an official date is, in fact, an investment, especially if you live in a place like New York where it could easily cost you a hundred dollars per date. In that sense, you want to make sure that the person is as well matched as possible before you go out on a date.

The official date has its own set of rules and decorum: you cannot just hang out in our PJs and sweatpants or get a bite to eat from the hot dog stand or stroll in the park together. Now you need to dress up, be on time – do not be more than fifteen minutes late, she suggested because that could the death knell to any potential romantic endeavors - and most importantly, be smart and do not use your smartphone during the official date.

If you need to take it with you, she recommended not to pull it out. If you need to pull it out, put it face down on the table. If you go to the washroom, under no circumstance should you take the phone with you. All these points are etiquette for you to ensure that the romantic date is as successful as possible.

After the official date, couples may end up living together. This is called “slow love,” which embodies a long and gradual time period to learn about oneself as well as the other. This is also one of the reasons why marriages are not rushed or jumped into, but that people choose to get married usually at the age of 27 to 30.

Does this approach lead to happier marriages? The answer seems to be yes. In a survey asking people whether they would remarry the same person they are currently with, 81 % said yes. What made their marriages successful depended on three outcomes that were tied to their brain and lifestyle.

First, a happy relationship depends upon showing and having empathy for each other. Secondly, both partners would need to find effective ways of controlling their stress and emotions. Finally, they would have to practice something called “positive illusions,” that is the ability to suspend negative judgments about the other. This would be counteracting the aforementioned negativity bias we all carry around with us unconsciously and could guarantee and promote successful relationships.

There are certain biological and physiological differences between the genders that are passed on through evolution, while there are also neurological differences that set people apart regardless of gender. This is known as the 4 different brain systems of dopamine (explorer), serotonin (builder), testosterone (director), and estrogen / oxytocin (negotiator).

Most of us usually have two predominant brain systems that are accompanied with both positive and negative traits, and this can be generally divulged and explored via a Neuro-Color test developed by Helen Fisher. 

In fact, she gave all attendees the gift of limited time-restricted access to this test. After listening to the characteristics, I had an idea how I would turn out in terms of my brain systems, and lo and behold, that was what the results demonstrated. However, more about the brain systems in a future post as I would like to finish here with what happened after the talk, and this post is getting much longer than planned.

After the talk, I rushed to get my drink and lined up to get the book of my undergrad years to be signed by Helen Fisher. The line was not too long, and I thought I would perhaps be able to get her autograph. I was mulling in my mind what to say to her, while I was sipping on my white wine, courtesy of the friendly elderly gentleman who had given me an unexpected second ticket.

One of the helpers at the event was going around asking for our names and putting them on yellow stick-it notes so that Helen could personalize her autographs. I was most elated about the fact. 

Then I noticed how one of the other organizers would take pictures while we were talking to her; some even got to stand next to Helen Fisher while their pics were taken. I asked for that as well pushing my luck on such a fortuitous day that I was having.



When it was finally my turn, I expected Helen Fisher to be thrilled with me owning a vintage edition of her book, but she scolded me instead. She told me that I should get the latest version, the revised edition that came out in 2016. She still signed it though, which I thought was very nice of her. 

I also thought that this book had just increased exponentially in value, not only being a first edition, but also being signed by the author herself. I understood also why as a scientist, she would want the most recent edition to be read as it must have been updated with relevant research and modern brain scans compared to its original edition.

Then I told her how she was one of the few scientists I agreed with and that I was working on a book that combined psychoanalysis with evolution. She then stopped for a moment, looked up and said, “but I am an evolutionary psychologist.” 

It was great to hear her say that because I have seen her designated and referred to as a biological anthropologist (even by herself), but to me she always was and is an evolutionary psychologist. 

I also thanked her for standing up and being outspoken against medication, such as antidepressants as well as being firmly against medicating our children, a modern trend that I personally find scary, if not downright disturbing and appalling.



Then, she wished me luck with my book, and as I shook her hand, she decided to stand up and take the above picture with me. Needless to say, it was one of the best days ever!


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I had fun with your para about there being no such thing as casual sex. There was something illogical about it, which I wanted briefly to prove in the briefest possible manner.

In the process of which I discovered a proof of God, which of course takes a little longer. But if you’re game, then so am I.

Helen Bishop, scientist, finds scant evidence of casual sex because her brain-scan experiments reveal a definite number of detectable excitations within the stages of love and attraction, unless the subjects were drunk or otherwise spaced out.

To which I respond that you cannot say something doesn’t exist when it’s a well-known term in common discourse. Everyone, apart from a scientist, understands what casual sex means, even though they may understand it differently.

Which immediately brings to mind Professor Dawkins, also a scientist, who denies the existence of God, despite its being a well-known term in common discourse. He seizes upon just one meaning of the term—object of faith, something believed without evidence—and proves that the belief is groundless and therefore that the term is meaningless, a name without a plausible referent.

Which so far just a bag of words on my part: soullessly theoretical and abstract.

Which immediately brings to mind an instance of casual sex in my own young life. Much more concrete, if anecdotal. We’d met at a dance, she’d missed her last bus, or so she said, and I chivalrously offered her a spare bed at mine. By. the time we’d traversed Birmingham on the night bus we were both cold sober. I remember it vividly because I was till that day a virgin, and she was too, so she said. Mischief and curiosity got the better of us. What could be more casual?

Which brings me to the remembrace that I could not rise to the occasion. Probably not enough testosterone, dopamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin or vasopressin. Which means Fisher may be right after all.

And if Fisher may be right, my proof of God falls flat.

What do I know? Only that what is, is. Probably.